Tranmere vs Norwich (Sky Sports One - Now)

[withdeanwombat]

That handball ! Well,as said above,it was a lamentable decision.

Still,the officials guidedogs are having a rest.

 

[auschr]

The worst thing is, if Lambert complains about it too strongly, he'll get punished when it's the ref and lino who should be being suspended - from ALL football, not just bumped down to inflict their incompetence on a lower league - and forced to undergo a retesting of their abilities by the the FA.

And even more hilarious is if they don't complain the ref feels obliged not to give anything. It's absolutely ridiculous. A balancing act of complaining just right to have a ref give something.

 

[Ernest]

I just hope we never get this clown as ref at Withdean

 

[Mackenzie]

The incompetent officials are making this an enjoyable game imo.

 

[Acker79]

Very harsh that, looking at the replay. Forster bought his arms in, certainly made no attempt to bring Moore down, I don't think.

Are you joking? It's one of those "I'm moving my arms in, but am trying to make my upper body big so I can trip him while making it look like I'm not" fouls. The goalkeeper knew what he was doing and had to go.

Shocking decision, blatant handball.

I thought, in one of the replays, it looked like it hit his shoulder/pec area more than his arm. I'm not saying it did, but from that one replay angle, I thought it looked that way and perhaps that was what it looked like to the linesman/ref (with one of them unsighted).

What the f*** is the point of having a ref and a linesman looking at the same incident, where every single player, and all the fans, see a blatant handball, if they're going to fail to see something every other person in the stadium had seen?

Interesting point, and a silly rule, but linesmen are only supposed to flag for incidents they don't think the ref saw. If the ref has a clear view of the incident and doesn't give it, the linesman is to assume he has ruled it no foul.

If the linesman thinks the ref saw the handball but didn't give it, he is supposed to assume the ref saw it and ruled it accidental.

It beggars belief, that call. If a player doesn't perform, he loses his place, perhaps is released. A manager loses his job. Where is the accountability of the officials for such utter ineptitude?

The worst thing is, if Lambert complains about it too strongly, he'll get punished when it's the ref and lino who should be being suspended - from ALL football, not just bumped down to inflict their incompetence on a lower league - and forced to undergo a retesting of their abilities by the the FA.

Well that's double standards. It's also somewhat inaccurate.

Inaccurate because players don't get dropped for one mistake. Managers don't lose their jobs for one bad result. It's a run of bad results, a run of bad performances etc. that lead to players losing their places, managers losing their jobs and so on.

Double standards because you make the comparisons to players and managers, but if a player or manager is released he is free to join a club at the same level, a higher level, a lower level, but isn't kicked out of football, as you want of the referee.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

I just hope we never get this clown as ref at Withdean

On the contrary, I hope we do. He's clearly a homer.

 

[Ernest]

On the contrary, I hope we do. He's clearly a homer.

f***ing bigot , I thought homophobic abuse is banned here

 

[8ace]

f***ing bigot , I thought homophobic abuse is banned here

 

[Herne Hill Seagull]

Well that's double standards. It's also somewhat inaccurate.

Inaccurate because players don't get dropped for one mistake. Managers don't lose their jobs for one bad result. It's a run of bad results, a run of bad performances etc. that lead to players losing their places, managers losing their jobs and so on.

Double standards because you make the comparisons to players and managers, but if a player or manager is released he is free to join a club at the same level, a higher level, a lower level, but isn't kicked out of football, as you want of the referee.

It's not standards at all - it's merely a comment on how I see it. And players can be, and are, dropped for one mistake, particularly goalkeepers. They have to re-prove themselves to get back in. A string of performances below the standards the club sets and they're on their way, whether loaned out, sold or simply released. And where did I say I wanted the referee kicked out of football? I said I wanted them suspended pending a retest of their competence by the FA. What's the difference between that and a player having to work his way back into the first team?

In almost all walks of life, if you don't do your job properly, there is a price to be paid for that failure. Referees however, seem almost immune from this. Managers seem to get punished for pointing that out.

 

[Acker79]

It's not standards at all - it's merely a comment on how I see it. And players can be, and are, dropped for one mistake, particularly goalkeepers.

One mistake only ever gets a player dropped if the manager is unconvinced of their ability in the first place, it's never just because of one single mistake.

And where did I say I wanted the referee kicked out of football? I said I wanted them suspended pending a retest of their competence by the FA. What's the difference between that and a player having to work his way back into the first team?

My apologies, I must have misread.

The difference between a player being dropped and earning his way back into the team is that he still trains with the squad, he gets to play, even at a lower level either in reserves on or loan. He gets to keep doing his job to prove he is worthy.

Suspend a referee and how does he prove himself? With theory? That isn't usually the problem. It's practise. The referee needs to keep refereeing to prove himself in the same way the player keeps playing to prove himself (albeit at a lower level). If I'm reading it correctly this time, you want the referee suspended from all action, rather than being inflicted on lower leagues. Why are lower leagues a fine proving ground for players, but not for refs? If not the lower leagues, how can the ref prove he is ready in practise?

In almost all walks of life, if you don't do your job properly, there is a price to be paid for that failure. Referees however, seem almost immune from this. Managers seem to get punished for pointing that out.

But they are not immune. They are immune from criticism by managers because managers have vested interests, and see things from a biased point of view. No one should have to be subjected to the vitriol of a manager who is deflecting from his or his teams failings, no manager should be free to intimidate referees from making decisions against them for fear of public flaying.

The easiest, clearest way to avoid any confusion (how is a manager to know if his anger at a refereeing performance is because of a poor refereeing performance, or if it's a perfectly fine refereeing performance but feels bad because so much went against them?) is to not let managers criticise refs.

Referees themselves face punishment.

Like players they want to progress, they want to work at the top, they want to ref the big games, the man utd/liverpool games, cup finals, they want to represent their country in the world cup.

When they make mistakes they suffer the embarrassment of that, as well as being dropped down a division or two, reassigned lesser games, used as 4th officials instead, etc. This may not seem like punishment to you, but it is a punishment to the refs because their careers and aspirations suffer.

Unfortunately the anti-referee sentiment that has been eating away at football for a few years now is finally biting football on the arse because there is a shortage of referees. Fewer people want the job because it's a thankless task. Even if you get everything right, people disagree with you and hurl abuse at you.

This makes it difficult to suspend them or drop them for long periods of time, because there just aren't enough referees to go around.

 

[Herne Hill Seagull]

This may not seem like punishment to you, but it is a punishment to the refs because their careers and aspirations suffer.

Unfortunately the anti-referee sentiment that has been eating away at football for a few years now is finally biting football on the arse because there is a shortage of referees. Fewer people want the job because it's a thankless task. Even if you get everything right, people disagree with you and hurl abuse at you.

This makes it difficult to suspend them or drop them for long periods of time, because there just aren't enough referees to go around.

It's also a punishment to the clubs and supporters that those referees get dropped down to handle. "You're not Premier League, so nobody gives a toss if the ref ballses up your game. Have this bloke who cocked up on telly last week."

You're right in that there are fewer refs to go round, and you're probably right that the abuse they take is contributing to that decline. But one symptom of this is manifesting itself as a fall in refereeing standards. A vicious circle I suppose.

The retest could, for example, take place in reserve games. Less riding on them, many fewer in the stands, but still in-game situations. Observed and advised by former refs in private (or even players - where is their input in reffing being sought? Surely the FA and the refs should be working with them to improve the relationship between refs and players).

I'm not after ritual humiliation of refs or seeking to worsen the vitriol they all suffer, but the equation is completely one sided at the moment. The ref rarely, if ever, comes out to explain his decisions, even a shocker like tonight's, after the game. Yet if a manager (whose livelihood, let's not forget, rests on the results the refs may be influencing) comes out and complains about him too vigourously, he's punished. Where's the justice in that?

Edit: one other thing. You're of course right that managers see things from a biased point of view, but what else are they going to do when they get a decision like tonight's? And I, and many others watching tonight's game, watched it from a completely disinterested position. So enough people watching the games do objectively see the difference between a bad game and a set of decisions that the manager's just moaning about because he's lost the game.

 

[Acker79]

It's also a punishment to the clubs and supporters that those referees get dropped down to handle. "You're not Premier League, so nobody gives a toss if the ref ballses up your game. Have this bloke who cocked up on telly last week."

But it isn't really any different to a referee coming up from non-league, is it? There is a progression, like with players, of proving yourself lower down the league system and earning a spot higher up. To get to the premier league a referee has to show he is capable in the championship. To ref in the championship he has to prove he is capable in league one, etc.

When a ref makes a mistake at one level he is only dropping down to a level he has already shown to be capable at.

The retest could, for example, take place in reserve games. Less riding on them, many fewer in the stands, but still in-game situations.

But the players' futures can depend on reserve games. If the ref is overly fussy he could interrupt the game too much not letting a player show his best, leading to aid playing being released because he failed to impress on his final chance.

And often times it is the pressure of what is riding on the game that forces the error, how would you account for that? If being in front of the cameras and the pressure of a massive live audience led to the error in the Arsenal/Spurs game, how is your ability to referee in those circumstances going to be tested by Colchester reserves v Yeovil reserves?

The ref rarely, if ever, comes out to explain his decisions, even a shocker like tonight's, after the game.

But one of the common criticisms of refs is 'they like drawing attention to themselves'. If refs made a habit of coming out after games to explain decisions this criticism will grow, conspiracies will fly that a ref made a decision to make a political point rather than in the interest of the game (e.g. refused to give a blatant penalty because the player has a history of diving and wanted to be able to come out on tv and say he "couldn't give the pen because the player's history of diving put doubt in his mind" thus bringing to the fore the diving argument again, making himself a her to those that hate diving, and so on)

Also, the referee's explanation for every decision should be in the laws of the game. It provides explanation on the rules and how refs should interpret them. Most rules say "it is an offence if, in the opinion of the referee...". So, for instance, a red card for a foul will always receive the explanation "I gave the foul because it looked to me like excessive force was used in that challenge".

The only decisions that aren't explained in the laws of the games are the ones that the referee knows are mistakes. Should he come out and admit he made those mistakes and will learn from it? Probably, but I feel uncomfortable demanding a public mea culpa from a ref when we don't demand it from managers or players (yes, their positions are on the line, but that is dealt with in house by the club, like referee's sanctions are).

Yet if a manager (whose livelihood, let's not forget, rests on the results the refs may be influencing)

This is not entirely fair on he ref. A manager's livelihood doesn't rest on one result. On result may be the straw that breaks the camel's back, but it isn't the whole bale, if I'm not mixing metaphors. Slade wasn't fired because we failed to beat hartlepool, he was fired because our run of results through august, september, and october were not good enough for Tony Bloom, and there were no signs of improvement coming any time soon.

This applies to any manager who is fired because of results (ignoring the firings that are unrelated to on field action), it is the run of results and not one match decided by a bad refereeing decision. To put all the blame on one ref's mistake is, as I said unfair.

And I, and many others watching tonight's game, watched it from a completely disinterested position. So enough people watching the games do objectively see the difference between a bad game and a set of decisions that the manager's just moaning about because he's lost the game.

But will you and all those other neutrals face repercussions from the FA for bad mouthing the ref? No, you won't. You are free to question the ref's performance, so they are not immune from criticism, just immune from criticism from the biased managers.

 

[Herne Hill Seagull]

Well, I give up then, Acker. What's your solution? Just let them get on with it, abstaining from criticising them and refusing to let one's emotions get the better of one during a game, just putting up stoically with their incompetence? Place the ref in a serene bubble where no matter how badly they perform, they can't be criticised by players or managers and shouldn't be yelled at by the fans?

"Tonight's referee is Mr J Stalin from Basingstoke. He enjoys painting, politics and mass-murder. Applaud him on, applaud him off, and don't criticise him for Christ's sake. He's perfect, you know. Even what you think of as his mistakes are there to demonstrate the perfect purity of the refereeing decision-making machine."

 

[Acker79]

Well, I give up then, Acker. What's your solution? Just let them get on with it, abstaining from criticising them and refusing to let one's emotions get the better of one during a game, just putting up stoically with their incompetence? Place the ref in a serene bubble where no matter how badly they perform, they can't be criticised by players or managers and shouldn't be yelled at by the fans?

"Tonight's referee is Mr J Stalin from Basingstoke. He enjoys painting, politics and mass-murder. Applaud him on, applaud him off, and don't criticise him for Christ's sake. He's perfect, you know. Even what you think of as his mistakes are there to demonstrate the perfect purity of the refereeing decision-making machine."

A good first step would be to insist all managers and players to learn the current laws of the game. It should also be worked into TV contracts that presenters, analysts commentators etc all familiarise themselves with the laws of the game. It should be recommended that all fans read them too.

Right there people would understand a lot more of the rules, how FIFA are insisting they be applied etc. what the definitions of fouls are etc., tie in a cultural change (we need to stop looking to pounce on any "mistake" the ref makes and use that to excuse our teams' failings - the result of a game is decided by thousands of decisions from everyone involved, players, refs managers, one wrong decision by the ref doesn't hold more weight than all the wrong decisions by the players and managers). We need to expect more honesty and sportsmanship from our players (not claiming for everything even when it's clearly not yours, not diving, not denying fouls - which would die down when players realise getting the ball isn't a defence)

I'd say with all that a good 65-75% of "referees' mistakes" would be acknowledged as right decisions (can't be offside from a goal kick, can be a foul even if the challenging player gets the ball, even if he doesn't touch the player, goalkeepers can't get sent off for handling back passes, etc). or otherwise eliminated.

One of the reasons the FA and FIFA don't like to overturn cards or take disciplinary action in games that the ref sees something is one of the basic tenets of the game is that the referee is the ultimate authority of a given game.

I would make it compulsory for referees to watch videos of their games, and I would give them the authority to overturn their own disciplinary decisions, and to address issues they missed. They should also be able to recommend particularly severe incidents for additional punishment (or given the ability to give additional punishments themselves).

This would serve several purposes, it would catch the few mistakes, it would allow referees to analyse their own performances note their weakness, tendencies on particular decisions or possible errors, and would get more decisions right, rule breakers would get punished even if they get away with it in the game, meaning if they aren't getting away with it, players will break the laws less, and all that occurs while the referee maintains authority on the game.

Of course, that should be coupled with eliminating the assessor in the stands. Refs should have some leeway to make occasional errors, they are human, and it is unfair to expect perfection from them when players aren't held to the same standard. All that we can hope is that the errors aren't costly and are learned from. With this, the referees when watching the games on video have to feel they can over turn the decisions they got wrong on the pitch without worrying about being dropped if they admit to errors.

However, they can't be free to keep repeating the same mistakes, so there has to be some oversight on this.

I think if only the first part happens (players, managers, analysts learning the laws of the game) there would been an apparent improvement in refereeing.